Posted on 02/19/2004 9:07:57 AM PST by jgrubbs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Contact: Alison Potter, Constitution Party National Committee 717-790-1993, email: hq@constitutionparty.com
Constitution Party Launches New Website
Lancaster, PA February 19, 2004 - The Constitution Party's new, upgraded website, www.constitutionparty.com, is being launched today.
The Constitution Party is the only political party that stands on the principles of the American founding. It is 100% pro-life, against same-sex "marriage", so-called free trade, pro-gun, pro-10th amendment, pro-American sovereignty, anti-globalist, and against illegal immigration.
The Constitution Party was founded in 1992 under the name U.S. Taxpayers Party and is now the 3rd largest party in the country in terms of voter registration. It has run candidates for the presidency and various lesser offices every year since its founding. It achieved ballot access for its presidential candidate in 21 states in 1992, 39 states in 1996, and 41 states in 2000.
National Party Chairman Jim Clymer said "The Constitution Party is a haven and a fortress for conservatives who have discerned how the Republican establishment has betrayed conservative principles over and over again and will continue to do so. It is also a beacon of hope for old-style Democrats and independents who are pro-national defense, anti-abortion, and strongly opposed to the de-industrialization of America.
In this election year the Constitution Party will be running candidates for the presidency, the U.S. Congress, and state and local offices.
The Constitution Party believes that this is the year many Americans will be persuaded that their vote is the currency of their conscience and that they must vote for what they truly believe, rather than wasting their vote on the "lesser of two evils".
The time for "business-as-usual" is over. The two major parties are irreparably compromised, morally, and philosophically, and Americans must reject their policies and any other course that ensures our country's continuing decline and eventual ruin.
CONTACT INFORMATION: Alison Potter 717-390-1993 Constitution Party http://www.constitutionparty.com
###
Yes, Bush said that, I never said he didn't say that. All I said was that Bush supports "civil unions", and has supported gay rights in his administration:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1080555/posts?page=19#19
At the federal level a marriage amendment is unwise; what is needed is the Constitution Restoration Act of 2004 (S. 2082), which was introduced last week and co-sponsored by Senator Zell Miller.
Are you referring to the federal government giving special benefits for partners of homosexual or non-married employees?
I have never missed a vote. I want them to know I am there. :)
It's very effective unless you're gullible. It worked for Nader against Gore.
2000 was the last "lessor of two evils" votes for many of us.
Always vote for the lesser evil. And who are the "many of us"?
BTW, if you were truly honest you would also point your vitriol towards Ronald Reagan who also appointed homosexuals in positions that had nothing to do with social policy.
Why the silence about Ronald Reagan?
Oh, the 14% or so here that intend to vote for other candidates or stay home might be a few of them.
Actually it is more like 10% and even some of that 10% could be part of the Moby/Kerry group.
You are still outnumbered by a margin of 8 to 1.
We all have our faults, Me, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, even Michael Peroutka. Overall I am disappointed with Bush, I posted a portion of an article about one of his many positions that should be considered a slap in the face to conservative values and you have taken major offense.
The silence about Ronald Reagan is because I was only five years old when he was first elected.
It's true, as Nader showed against Gore. The Constitution Party is the Perot of 2004.
I will simply vote my conscience. If I feel ok with the vote in my heart, then to heck with what anyone else here or any place thinks.
Don't let your conscience, your heart, your feelings, your personal views, your morals, your principles, your integrity, or whatever....get in the way of your God-given common sense.
So for the record if you knew about Reagan hiring homosexuals, you would not vote for him, correct.
Thus, IMO, giving a defacto vote for Carter or Mondale.
For the misguided, pseudo-maverick, disgruntled, disenchanted, gullible 14%, what is the difference between voting for other candidates and staying home?
Really? FR always had it's share of very loud yet small contingent of malcontnets. Buchanan in 2000, the Constitutionl Party in 2004.
Still doesn't negate the fact that they are outnumbered 8 to 1 on a very right wing forum.
If that was the only issue, I would probably still vote for Reagan, because from what I know he was the most conservative Presidents in my lifetime. If you compared Reagan to Bush you would see a big difference. If the only thing I disagreed with Bush was that he hired a few homosexuals, I would vote for him, but that is not the case. Bush has proven himself to be a moderate and not a conservative on many issues.
Even many who are voting for him admit that it's over the single issue of the "War on Terror", or because they don't want a Democrat to win the election.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.